let's have no doubt who wrote that, pharma and no doubt about the effect of it. it will kill the bill. you can vote for it, but it kills the ability to re-import drugs. let's not have the charade. i would be glad to do whatever the committee's wishes are. have no doubt it would have the effect of killing the legislation and the amendment before us. >> mr. chairman? >> let me finish the thought. i supported this proposal in the past. 108th congress we had this matter up. i think the case has been made on re-importation. >> sorry? >> is this on? >> just pull the mike closer. >> i supported this in the past. 108th congress we had a vote on this and i supported it. i would again today. i think this is an important provision moving in that direction. obviously, members here -- i also, i disagree with john at this point. i don't think the cochran or language necessarily kills the bill at all. it does raise the issue many of us have concern about the effectiveness, but nonetheless, i want to be on record as being supportive of this effort. i know there's been an effort

an e-mail that was sent, from pharma, to not have a debate and vote on it. if my friend would indulge me, it is an important -- "urgent." this is from the -- as i understand it, from one of the -- from the lobbyist of far mavment "the senate son the tobacco bill today. unless we get some significant movement, the full-blown dorgan or vitter bill will pass an amendment and the cochran or brownback amendment will fail. one, we need to locate a democratly cosponsored for the second-degree amendment. it goes on that kj & j, merck, novartis and the other new jersey companies coordinate and contact senator men nen des aves and get him to take the lead? we're trying to get senator dorgan to back down. senator mccain has said he will offer rawrls. so even if dorgan withdraws, we may still go forward. we believe we have 39 yes votes and 25 members in the undecided column. kenzie not here. we're scheduling a call for later this morning to follow up on our targets from yesterday's whip call. please make sure your staff is fully engaged in this process. this is real. ww

pharmaceutical industry on why the amendment shouldn't pass and the most powerful lobby in washington is pharma and they exercise their muscle with great frequency income should be millions of dollars to campaign coffers. this i understand the opposition here. you are going to hear the industry. we had a little intercepted e-mail the other day when we were going to get in on the floor and the arguments were they needed to contact various people in order to stop this and they will argue they are not safe and argue that fda doesn't have resources to ensure the safety of imported drugs. but let's be clear, the almighty pharmaceutical industry concern is competition. any claim that important -- imported trucks is inaccurate, safety is of utmost concern in this amendment would require pharmacies and drug wholesalers to register eight yen is industry safe requirements including many fratricide inspections. additionally require strong anti counterfeiting measures and chain of custody rules to ensure that only authorized persons handle medications. it would provide the fda the resources and authority t

in this case they are owned by the pharma and ama, and the insurers. so we need single-payer. it is simple as that. we ought to join the rest of the civilized world, and what the last fellow said about we have the best health care system in the world, it is just fox news propaganda, republican propaganda. it is not even close to accurate. "the wall street journal," with their talking about sending people to the united states for procedures, well, those people are covered. you know, when we go somewhere else, it is all out of pocket host: let me be clear, it was an editorial by david gratzer. he pointed out that in the united kingdom where socialized medicine with established after world war twii, patients are allowed to choose among facilities, including private ones. he concludes with this point, "americans need to ask the basic question -- why are they rushing into a system of government- dominated health care when the very countries that have experienced it for so long are backing away?" caller: let me just say this. you guys broadcast, probably a year ago, the producer for

since pharma is in intensive that sector will be hard hit. higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, high religious in costs and higher natural gas to drive fertilizer costs erode farm drofits which are expected to asop by 28% in 2012, average 57% turer in 2035. as with american manufacturers, waxman-markey but american farmers that a global disadvantage and other food exporting nations would have no comparable price ranging educures in place. overall, waxman-markey reduces gross domestic product by $393 billion annually between 2012, and 2005, cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. and with waxman-markey rather than without it, these costs are utt distributed evenly, low-income households spend an additional share of their incomes on energy and this would verait harder than average by waxman-markey. the bill has provisions to give back the revenue to low-income households but in my view it is likely these rebates will amount to only some portion of each dollar that was taken away from households in the first place in the form of higher energy costs and

and pharma and others allowing us to stay out of acute care bed. we didn't have all of those things. so now health care has become much, much, much more complicated and for some, according to the new yorker magazine article which i commend to everybody, when we have decided to make health care a "business proposition" so that you could get several doctors together and open up a cancer center and that becomes something in which you promote overutilization and it is happening in parts of our country, then we need to be concerned about that and try to evaluate what we can do together. one final point: some of my colleagues march to the floor every sing will day and allege that a bill that doesn't yet exist is going to be a government takeover of health care. well, apparently they are chairt but there is not a fact that allows someone to say there is a government takeover of health care because there is not a bill out of either committees. there have been some introductions of topics from legislative proposals but that is far different from a bill reco